Rape victim ordered to pay child support

[Kidlicious]

http://livewirereview.com/pay-child-...source=taboola

A 15-year-old boy who was raped by a 34-year-old woman now faces child support in Nebraska.

This is the case for now 19-year-old Jeremy Steen, of Lincoln, Nebraska. In 2008, Steen was seduced and raped repeatedly by his 34-year-old baby sitter Linda Kazinsky. Sources testified that the sexual abuse took place weekly for nearly 3 years. After police were alerted, Ms. Kazinsky was arrested and charged with statutory rape and false imprisonment.

Kazinsky was employed as a babysitter for the Steens for nearly 3 years.

After Kazinsky’s release from Nebraska’s state prison system in 2012 she was able to regain custody of her child. The child had been a ward of the state for the first 13 months until Debra Kazinsky, Linda’s sister, was able to gain custody. After being reunited with her child, Kazinsky promptly filed for Aid and Government assistance which in turn landed Jeremy with a subpena for child support.

Jeremy had his day in court and was ordered to pay $475 a month in child support to Linda Kazinsky as well as a whopping $23,000 in back Child Support payments.

As incredible as this case sounds it’s not the first nor the last of its kind. Unfortunately, men are victimized as much as women over child support these days. It’s an unpopular topic but one that should be addressed. Here is another story from last year:

Raping a 15 year old and collecting $425 a month isn't a priviledge. She's a victim of the patriarchy.

[dannubis]

No, she is a rapist and went to jail for it.

How on earth the victim is forced to pay child support seems to be something that happens in Lala US land...

[Kidlicious]

No, she is a rapist and went to jail for it.

For only 3 years, and obviously not required to register as a sex offender. She recieved special treatment because of her gender.

How on earth the victim is forced to pay child support seems to be something that happens in Lala US land...

I don't see any reason to think the US is special in this case. Social attitudes are the same in Europe.

[100% Wolf]

Probably another fake internet "news" story.

[Ming]

http://livewirereview.com/pay-child-...source=taboola

Hmmm... do some more homework. This story has already been trashed by the standard myth buster sites. Try finding ANYTHING about Jeremy Steen or Linda Kazinsky on the net besides this story. Guess what, you can't, because they don't exist.

It seems to be based on a story from 1996 that ran in the San Francisco Examiner and also in my home town paper The Chicago Tribune.

Statutory Rape Victim Ordered To Pay Child Support
December 22, 1996|By Erin McCormick, San Francisco Examiner.

SAN FRANCISCO — He was a 15-year-old kid with all the usual teenage sexual passions.

She was his neighbor--a 34-year-old mom, later convicted of statutory rape for engaging him in a romantic tryst that resulted in her getting pregnant.

But in a case that sets the term "deadbeat dad" on its ear, a California appeals court has ruled that the young man from San Luis Obispo, identified only as "Nathaniel J." in court records, is responsible for paying child support for the baby born of the illegal union.

The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles--the first decision of its kind in California--leads to a number of sticky societal questions, ranging from whether girls and boys should be treated differently in cases of statutory rape to the fairness of government's increasingly aggressive pursuit of child-support payments.

"This is a really bizarre case," said Mary Ann Mason, a social-welfare professor at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in societal legal issues. "It seems unfair that he was taken advantage of, and then he gets prosecuted for child support. He's considered a victim on one hand and a perpetrator on the other."

County and state authorities, rather than the mother, have pursued the case, seeking compensation for welfare payments the infant girl has been receiving since her birth in January 1995.

Attorneys from the state attorney general's office, which represented the state in the appeal, say the teenager should be responsible for the child because he indicated he was a willing sexual partner.

"Our point of view is that the newborn is the victim in these matters," said Carol Ann White, a lawyer who heads the attorney general's child-support-enforcement unit. "No matter what the circumstances of their conception, babies deserve to have two parents.

"And this was a consensual relationship," she added.

The fact that it was consensual is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

So please, try to find the original source for this story besides all the exact printed fabrications that have appeared on multiple website with NO ATTRIBUTIONS.

Or try to find ANYTHING at all that supports that this is a true story.

GOOD LUCK

[pchang]

The real story is about how States will try anything to get more money so politicians can say they haven't raised taxes.

[Kidlicious]

Hmmm... do some more homework. This story has already been trashed by the standard myth buster sites. Try finding ANYTHING about Jeremy Steen or Linda Kazinsky on the net besides this story. Guess what, you can't, because they don't exist.

It seems to be based on a story from 1996 that ran in the San Francisco Examiner and also in my home town paper The Chicago Tribune.



The fact that it was consensual is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

So please, try to find the original source for this story besides all the exact printed fabrications that have appeared on multiple website with NO ATTRIBUTIONS.

Or try to find ANYTHING at all that supports that this is a true story.

GOOD LUCK

The case in CA is the first. It doesn't mean this is a fake story. The same thing has happened in atleast three other cases.

Do you think someone who is convicted of taking advantage of a boy a suitable parent? The boy is a victim and he has to pa th child support. You think that's fair?

[molly bloom]

The same thing has happened in atleast three other cases.

Which are ?

[Ming]

The case in CA is the first. It doesn't mean this is a fake story.

Again... Find some proof that these people even exist. Find the source of the story. Find the court case number.
FIND ANYTHING that proves your made up story is true... Oh, you can't... Because the story you posted is an internet myth. Just a made up story.

At least the CA case raises some interesting questions. There is the issue of consent. Something that was totally removed from your myth. Is he really a victim or not?
That's a whole different discussion...

I haven't said whether it's right or wrong... just stating that you posted a lie to support your crusade.

[rah]

I'd like to hear his argument on why it discriminating against all men that the a 34 year old women was given custody vs a 19 year old man.

[Kidlicious]

Again... Find some proof that these people even exist. Find the source of the story. Find the court case number.
FIND ANYTHING that proves your made up story is true... Oh, you can't... Because the story you posted is an internet myth. Just a made up story.

At least the CA case raises some interesting questions. There is the issue of consent. Something that was totally removed from your myth. Is he really a victim or not?
That's a whole different discussion...

I haven't said whether it's right or wrong... just stating that you posted a lie to support your crusade.

You admit it happened once but don't think it can happen again? I think you just want to call me a liar.

So you don't think it's wrong for a 34 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. Got it.

[Sava]

Kid has become worse than BK, IMO. For all his being evil, lying, arguing against indisputable facts... at least BK has a sense of humor. And he's not a one-trick pony.

[molly bloom]

I think you just want to call me a liar.

That's not high on my bucket list. If you act all Delilah and say

The same thing has happened in atleast three other cases.

I'd expect you to be a little more generous and provide a modicum of proof. Posting Internet myths isn't a way to make your arguments credible- it just invites mockery.

Or in your case, more mockery.

[rah]

So you don't think it's wrong for a 34 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. Got it.

Man, you've lowered yourself to Ben tactics.
Please point on any post where anybody said it was ok for a 24 year old to be having sex with 15 year old.

[Kidlicious]

I'd like to hear his argument on why it discriminating against all men that the a 34 year old women was given custody vs a 19 year old man.

Because it's not in the best interest of the child for one. Second, she probabl not even registered as a sex offender.